What is the essenti...
 
Notifications
Clear all

What is the essential quality of Thelema?  

Page 4 / 4
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
31/05/2010 7:52 pm  

During the dark ages, there were small communities like the Rosicrucians that preserved the knowledge and ideals that the spirit of the times sought to stamp out. Even in the Catholic church there was the preservation of Aristotle and rogue monks hid away the "gnostic gospels" at Nag Hammadi.

So what we need are communities in which the methodology of Thelema are put into practical application, the preservation of the texts and their proper interpretations, and the work to establish a degree of autonomy from the global main stream economy (Jewish-Templar banking system and Calvinist capitalism) The western political ideals (Christian egalitarian democracy, that manifests mob-rule and disguises tyranny), and the social-culture that is based on Christian slave morals, repression of sexuality, or the reactionary pop media that SELLs perversity and debauchery against the uptight morals of society)

Thelema must stand against all of this, it must stand apart from and in a clearing or sacred space, where a small Oasises are set up, as actual functioning communities with physical locations, hold steady to the law, in opposition to the slow degradation of society into darkness, Like a Babe in the abyss, Waiting to be born from the ashes of the previous world.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
31/05/2010 9:44 pm  
"name538" wrote:
the global main stream economy (Jewish-Templar banking system and Calvinist capitalism).

93!

Brilliantly analysed! Especially those Oriental Templars!

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
31/05/2010 10:02 pm  

The O.T.O was never actually affiliated with the knights Templar. The Masons just like the symbols and themes of Templar history, all the pseudo-Islamic rituals and such is a result of wanting to appear linked to the original Rosicrucian society. The oriental does not mean eastern in the sense of India and china either, it means the same as in the Oriental Orthodox Catholicism. Which is a subset of Eastern Orthodox, having ties to the French Gnostic traditions.

In traditionalism, Judaism and it's derivatives are considered Eastern as opposed to western European paganism. The Templars being a bridge between east and west. Western Catholicism (derived from Rome) that interacted with eastern Islam and Judaism.

I do not think, prior to the taoist and Buddhist influences that Crowley brought with him, that you would find East Asian practices under Ruess. Save he may have indented the Oriental to refer to the supposed Tibetan teachings of Theosophy.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
01/06/2010 6:53 am  
"zardoz" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
But, in reality, our future must be now because the problems are here now and are becoming very, very pressing, to which the present state of the world attests. If the solutions are to be found in the Law of Thelema, the applications must be very realistic, very practical and damn near immediate.

It's important to remember that AC, in The Book of Thoth predicted a 500 year period of "dark ages." So far, he appears right. It seems unrealistic and naive to think that the highest Thelemic ideals would get completely realized only 100 years after the reception of TBotL. I consider the Thelemic cultural movement very successful in the relatively brief time it's been around.

93,

Agreed.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
01/06/2010 7:37 am  
"zardoz" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
But, in reality, our future must be now because the problems are here now and are becoming very, very pressing, to which the present state of the world attests. If the solutions are to be found in the Law of Thelema, the applications must be very realistic, very practical and damn near immediate.

It's important to remember that AC, in The Book of Thoth predicted a 500 year period of "dark ages." So far, he appears right. It seems unrealistic and naive to think that the highest Thelemic ideals would get completely realized only 100 years after the reception of TBotL. I consider the Thelemic cultural movement very successful in the relatively brief time it's been around.

While I agree with you that Crowley predicted a period of dark age to come throughout his whole life, I think it should be noted that if we evaluate Thelema in light of his two criterias for its success we fall pitifully short.

We have neither made any lasting impact on the world in the form of it adopting the Law of Thelema on a large scale (which would help us according to Crowley to avoid the mentioned dark age), nor managed to create any significant stronghold (abbeys, profess-houses and the like) where freedom in its Thelemic sense might re-establish itself from during those dark ages and defend us from the onslaught of what Crowley liked to call the cults of the slave-gods.

In fact the only success we have had is our publication program which was according to Crowley important (in terms of the Dark Ages) in order to leave behind the wisdom for others to pick up later if both the above failed. However important the publication of our writings are, I do not consider this to be an example of astonishing success, as most movements are able to do this and to measure success according to the lowest common denominator is an odd way to measure it in a non-egalitarian movement that highly regard accomplishment (at least the Crowleyan variant which I am assuming we are talking about considering that one of his predictions are being used).

According to any standard then, including Crowley's own or for that matter if we compare ourself with other movements, we are not really all that successful. We have managed to lay the foundation but most of the walls are either still not set up or unfinished. This might all change of course, but I am not holding my breath.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
30/09/2011 7:52 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Neither the philosopher or the neuro-scientist were able to state that the mind was a material substance. The philosopher stated that the "self" was a combination of chemical reactions, and the neuro-scientist took it no further.

Greetings, neuromagick.com is my website. I noticed incoming links in my stats and followed them here.

I just want to share that I don't equate the mind with the brain. A brain has substance, whereas a mind is just an idea, nothing more than a label for the sum of our experiences, including experienced capacities, etc. We do seem to rely on the brain to have experiences though. As near as I can tell if we take away the brain we take away the experiences. Dependence isn't identity tough.

The dependence isn't 100% certain either. Some people, for whatever reason, think that the mind is independent of the body, and is just expressed through the brain while associated with a body, and presumably in other ways when not. While that seems improbably to me, technically it's unknowable, one among many unverifiable ideas.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
01/10/2011 12:24 am  
"REugeneLaughlin" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Neither the philosopher or the neuro-scientist were able to state that the mind was a material substance. The philosopher stated that the "self" was a combination of chemical reactions, and the neuro-scientist took it no further.

Greetings, neuromagick.com is my website. I noticed incoming links in my stats and followed them here.

I just want to share that I don't equate the mind with the brain. A brain has substance, whereas a mind is just an idea, nothing more than a label for the sum of our experiences, including experienced capacities, etc. We do seem to rely on the brain to have experiences though. As near as I can tell if we take away the brain we take away the experiences. Dependence isn't identity tough.

The dependence isn't 100% certain either. Some people, for whatever reason, think that the mind is independent of the body, and is just expressed through the brain while associated with a body, and presumably in other ways when not. While that seems improbably to me, technically it's unknowable, one among many unverifiable ideas.

I don't even remember what this thread was about, but thank you for sharing that viewpoint, and I agree with what you are saying, for the most part. I think that maybe brain is necessary for mind, but mind is not necessary for brain. One can therefore have brain, but no mind, but not a mind with no brain. So whether or not the mind is a function of the brain, is another question altogether. The mind can go outside of the brain, the brain cannot go outside of the mind, it seems.


ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 4
Share: